#Section 69 Income Tax Act

The Rajasthan High Court held that revenue must prove both elements of Sec 2(9)(A) of the Benami Prohibition Act and cannot rely on unexamined or retracted statements, even with a Sec 69 income-tax clearance. The ruling shields property owners from benami orders based on untested evidence.

ITAT Agra quashed a Rs.16.28 lakh addition under Section 69 after ruling that revenue cannot rely solely on unauthenticated Excel data from a third-party search without corroboration or opportunity for cross-examination. This reinforces that digital evidence, however voluminous, must meet basic standards of natural justice to justify tax additions - a critical safeguard for taxpayers facing algorithmic or bulk data-driven assessments.

The ITAT Guwahati has ruled that an addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment cannot rest solely on a statement from a survey that has been formally retracted, even if initially supportive. This sets a vital safeguard for taxpayers, requiring independent corroborative evidence and a fair opportunity to present valuation and source documentation before any adverse inference is drawn.

The ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled that under Section 69, unexplained investments in immovable property are taxable only in the financial year when the payment is actually made, not when the property is registered. This reinforces that documentary proof of payment timing trumps speculative assumptions by tax authorities, offering clarity to non-residents and cash-based investors facing scrutiny.

The ITAT Delhi has ruled that unexplained investment additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained if the taxpayer proves the funds originated from legitimate family holdings and align with CBDT Circular 1916/1994, which permits such sources during search and seizure proceedings. This sets a critical precedent for taxpayers with joint family assets, requiring tax authorities to verify familial financial patterns before imposing additions.

ITAT Delhi rules that gold jewellery owned by a married daughter residing abroad, supported by an affidavit, cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69 merely on presumptive grounds. The ruling emphasizes that CBDT guidelines on permissible jewellery limits do not override documented ownership, reinforcing natural justice in tax assessments.

ITAT Bangalore rules that where an assessee discloses bitcoin investments and corresponding capital losses in tax returns, additions under Section 69 for 'unexplained investments' cannot stand. The ruling underscores that mere non-declaration of capital gains-without concealment of the investment source-does not constitute unaccounted income, offering relief to crypto traders facing reassessment.

ITAT Mumbai rules that consultancy receipts cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69 without evidence of illegality. Only expenses proven unverifiable-not the entire amount-are disallowed, protecting taxpayers from arbitrary additions.

ITAT restores appeal to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing burden of proof, necessity of verification under Section 133(6), and consequences of non-prosecution in tax appeals.